Delivery – 2011 Draft

Developments like this are big and complex so people and organisations with the right skills and resources need to be on board. At this early stage it is important that we find the best developer for the job who will ensure that the community is involved in the development process and who will champion our vision. In working with a developer we will retain flexibility in our approach but equally we will be looking for a developer who can go the extra mile to deliver a scheme with which we as a community are proud to be associated.

Do you support this vision?

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

4 thoughts on “Delivery – 2011 Draft”

The best developer for the site is a not-for-profit organisation. This could be a co-operative, a community interest group or perhaps the council. The overall management has to be in democratic control. For-profit companies may come in to do some of the works, however ownership and management of the development have to be under democratic control, in order for the project to benefit the people in the area rather than companies’ need for profit.

I can understand people’s reluctance to involve developers who will make significant profit from the site, however, lets be realistic, if we want to improve facilities for the whole community someone who knows what they’re doing will need to manage it. Are there any not for profit/sustainable developers who specialise in community projects that could handle the job?

If we are going to be ‘realistic’, I think the first thing to take on board is that the current commercial development process is a busted flush. We’ve got two gated communities, one at each end of Stokes Croft, so we don’t want any more of them. Then we’ve got a stalled development project at Bristol North Pool, just a way up Gloucester Road, where the council appointed a ‘preferred developer’ 5 years ago who hasn’t managed to even complete on the purchase let alone lay any bricks.

Great that local councillors have given support and momentum to a consultation process. However, the council will have to take the flack and bear the costs of a protracted CPO process to unlock this site. The price of a legal approval to CPO Westmoreland may well be that a deal is in place to sell on to a new owner with a greater commitment to development and use. All very well except that such a benign private sector actor will be very hard to find in these cash-strapped times. Stokes Croft is as vibrant as it is largely because big budget development has largely been absent from this part of town. So the private sector is unlikely to be capable of the vision required to develop a business plan and design brief for this major site that protects and enhances the Croft’s vitality. It needs instead a high quality, independent master planning process, which could identify sites and projects within an overall framework informed by urban design principles. Then it needs the Vision stakeholders to identify (or if necessary oversee the creation of) a not-for-profit organisation that can be the long-term steward of the assets created on behalf of the Croft’s residents, users and businesses.